Larsson v WealthSure Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 926

Larsson v WealthSure Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 926

The proceeding no longer continued as a representative proceeding because the group definition, by referring to persons who "have appointed" Maddocks Lawyers, allowed the possibility of joining the group after commencement by appointing those solicitors and was therefore an impermissible opt in arrangement. Further, the proceedings were not innately suitable as representative proceedings because they concerned a limited and known group seeking individual orders for individually calculated losses, required examination of each group member's circumstances, and all relief could be pursued by individual applicants or by joinder; the costs immunity of group members did not justify continuation...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Whether the Proceedings Should Continue as Representative Proceedings And, Alternatively, Whether Parts of the Amended Statement of Claim Should Be Struck Out
Outcome
Proceedings ordered to no longer continue as representative proceedings.
Legal Topics
['representative Proceedings' 'part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'group Member Definition' 'opt in Arrangements' 'section 33 N Order That Proceeding Not Continue as Representative Proceeding' 'pleadings']
['practice and Procedure'] ['representative Proceedings' 'part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'group Member Definition' 'opt in Arrangements' 'section 33 N Order That Proceeding Not Continue as Representative Proceeding' 'pleadings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Whether the Proceedings Should Continue as Representative Proceedings And, Alternatively, Whether Parts of the Amended Statement of Claim Should Be Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should continue as representative proceedings under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether the group definition requiring persons to have appointed Maddocks Lawyers operated as an impermissible opt in arrangement.' 'Whether the amended statement of claim identified sufficient common issues based on the same, similar or related circumstances as required by s 33C of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether parts of the amended statement of claim should be struck out or amended if the proceedings continued as representative proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding no longer continued as a representative proceeding because the group definition, by referring to persons who "have appointed" Maddocks Lawyers, allowed the possibility of joining the group after commencement by appointing those solicitors and was therefore an impermissible opt in arrangement. Further, the proceedings were not innately suitable as representative proceedings because they concerned a limited and known group seeking individual orders for individually calculated losses, required examination of each group member's circumstances, and all relief could be pursued by individual applicants or by joinder; the costs immunity of group members did not justify continuation...

Court Disposition

Proceedings ordered to no longer continue as representative proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings no longer continue as representative proceedings.' 'The parties submit proposed short minutes of order to give effect to these Reasons for Judgment. In the absence of consent, the respondent submit proposed short minutes of order by 12 October 2013.']